Bill Eases Harm Of Forefeitures

A new bill that the U.S. House passed Thursday would bring much more fairness, justice and common sense to a grossly unfair, unjust and unreasonable legal process called "contraband forfeiture.''

At present, federal law is far too lax and irrational, punishing the innocent along with the guilty and denying due process. It lets police immediately seize "contraband" property -- such as houses, cars, boats and large sums of cash -- if they merely suspect it has been used in committing a crime.

You don't have to be an ACLU lawyer to object to the notion that the law doesn't make police charge someone with a crime, give them a hearing, or win a conviction in order to get a court order later to keep the property. Some property has remained confiscated even after suspects were acquitted.

In one case, police stopped Floridian Richard Apfelbaum in the Dallas-Fort Worth Airport on his way to Las Vegas with $9,640 in cash he wanted to use for gambling. Police searched his bag and seized his money, suspecting it must be involved in illegal drug activity, but never charged him with a crime.

The new bill (HR 1658), filed by Rep. Henry Hyde, R-Ill., is needed to remedy what Hyde calls an "oppressive instrument" used to abuse the rights of innocent people.

The bill amounts to a radical overhaul of a horribly flawed civil forfeiture system, entirely separate from the criminal justice system. Civil forfeitures were permitted for a good purpose, to provide an additional deterrent to crime by letting would-be criminals know they risk losing their property as well as their freedom. The forfeitures also were a tempting tool for police agencies to use to beef up their budgets without raising taxes.

Civil penalties were originally aimed at punishing drug traffickers, mobsters, money-launderers and members of other organized criminal conspiracies. But overzealous police have misapplied those penalties to hundreds of innocent people. In the past decade, the U.S. government has averaged $500 million a year in seizures, mostly in cash. Eighty percent of those whose property has been seized were never charged with any crime.

The House bill includes several sensible reforms that would:

Require the government to prove the property seized was part of a criminal act, instead of requiring property owners to prove it was not.

Raise the standard of proof to one of "clear and convincing evidence" that the property was linked to a crime, not just the current showing of "probable cause."

Let federal judges order disputed property returned to the owner temporarily pending final action if he can show loss of the property would create a "substantial hardship."

Remove a requirement that the owner post a bond equal to 10 percent of the property's value to get a hearing to challenge the seizure.

Give owners 30 days, instead of the current 10, to challenge a seizure in court.

Let an owner who wins his property back be able to sue the government for any property damage or destruction that occurs.

Senate Judiciary Committee Chairman Orrin Hatch says he is considering filing a similar bill in the Senate. Florida and other states should amend their own contraband forfeiture laws accordingly.

The House vote was 375-48. Seven of South Florida's eight House members voted for the bill; only Rep. Peter Deutsch, D-Fort Lauderdale, voted no.

Hyde is right: "This bill puts civil liberties and due process back into our justice system."